The Iran deal

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:46 am

I wonder if anyone still dares discuss it.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Frelga » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:08 pm

No, we are all terrified that the armed drones will break down the windows and fly us to the castle of the Wicked Witch of the West. :P
Image
"You start running they'll never let you stop. You stand up, push back... Can't say no forever right?"
―Steve Rogers, Captain America: The First Avenger
User avatar
Frelga
GNU Terry Pratchett

 
Posts: 9221
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:05 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:10 pm

Seems like it. It's kind of the single biggest thing that happened in global politics lately, and yet there hasn't been so little discussion of anything not related to internal American politics since I've first signed in here.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:04 am

What would be the point of discussing it? Opponents of the deal would simply offer factually inaccurate criticisms and make deliberately vague demands for a "better deal" while refusing to give any details on what that better deal might be and how they might achieve it within the scope of the international partnership which put the deal together.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:43 am

I thought no deal was better than a bad deal. That was the tagline a short while ago, anyhow.

The interesting thing is, even the most ardent supporters of the deal can't point out anything good about it. Arguments in favor of the deal boil down to "it's either that deal or war"- not that it's ever quite explained why war would be worse, or how the deal avoids war.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Aravar » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:20 am

War is, the vast majority of the time, worse.

Even Churchill, who was often accused of being a warmonger (and not just against Nazi Germany) was the origin of the phrase "jaw-jaw is better than war-war".
User avatar
Aravar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 8:57 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Jul 25, 2015 11:45 am

Aravar wrote:War is, the vast majority of the time, worse.

Even Churchill, who was often accused of being a warmonger (and not just against Nazi Germany) was the origin of the phrase "jaw-jaw is better than war-war".

He also said that however beautiful one's strategy, one needs to occasionally look at the results.

The results of Obama's foreign policy undertakings have invariably been disastrous, and the Iran deal is the biggest disaster yet.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Jnyusa » Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:42 pm

I wouldn't say that Pres Obama's foreign policy decisions have been bad in general ... on the contrary. But Time Mag did a synopsis of this deal in their most recent issue, praising it for the most part or at least granting its inevitability, and it still looks like a very bad deal to me. (With the added caveat that Time Mag is generally riddled with inaccuracies so I wouldn't feel confident zeroing in on any particular component of the agreement from their description of it.)

But what stops me from thinking there are any redeeming virtues in this deal is the fact that Iran has absolutely no need for nuclear power to use for peaceful means. The discussion shouldn't even be taking place. We shouldn't even consider condoning the transfer or development of this technology to or by anyone who has plentiful sources of alternative energy. So why is the discussion taking place at all? (And that's before we even get to the weighing of Iran's status as a belligerent among nations, which, in my opinion, would disqualify it from this particular tech even it were crucially needed as an alternative energy source.)

So who the heck is pushing for this? Iran, obviously. Europe and the US are pretending that the ultimate outcome is somehow inevitable and only the fine print is under their temporary control, whereas in truth they have to be proactively in favor of making Iran a nuclear power in order for it to be happening at all, however inobvious they would like that promotion to seem to the world.

So cui bono? And I remember that even though a nuclear Iran is not in the self-interest of any country, not even Iran if Iran is defined as the people who live in Iran, there are factions in Europe and the US who wish to promote nuclear power everywhere - peaceful nuclear power, of course - and who will not suffer any political leader to take the position that nuclear energy is unnecessary. Nukes are necessary, always and everywhere. They are the cleanest, safest, cheapest sources of power available to us on earth, and if you contradict our brochure we will eat your children.

The one argument that must be made cannot be made. I cannot see it being made by any political leader or party without their suffering the most dire campaign consequences for it.

If I had to put odds on the ultimate outcome of this wimping-out by Europe and US to what I'm concluding must be at-home political pressure by the nuclear power industry, I would put my odds on a fairly speedy weaponization of nuclear facilities by Iran, and no compunction whatsoever about using them. The safeguards described in the Time article did not comfort me at all, and when we talk about 'domino effects,' surely the motivation to develop nukes when a belligerent neighbor already has them is the weightiest domino on the block. Iraq and Syria will certainly be next. What we hoped to avoid by invading them we will bring to pass by a different route.

Iran is surrounded by neighbors who don't want this to happen ... that if nothing else should make us suspect the motivations and forces behind this agreement.

It is not my opinion that Israel is a force for peace in this world, but if Israel makes good on its threat to bomb into oblivion any nuclear facility that Iran should erect, I doubt that I would wring my hankie over it, nor do I foresee immediate consequences worse that what Israel is already experiencing.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5925
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:49 pm

One aspect of the agreement is that all parties need to agree to it, if there is to be any sort of agreement.

Pressing for "a better deal" assumes that there is a "better deal" that the Iranians would be willing to agree to.
I am not sure that: 1. there is such a deal, as the Iranians might ALSO feel that no deal is better than a bad deal; and 2. how sure are we that, if we shoot down a deal, that our allies would be willing to stick around instead of making separate deals?

I am not sure that the Obama Administration is "trusting" the Iranians to keep to the deal. It seems to me that the triggers are pretty good, and I agree that if some thing clandestine is going on that it will still be detectable 24 days later. Even if part of the agreement is kept, it will probably be better than the present situation.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Jnyusa » Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:29 pm

I guess what I can't get through my head is why any deal at all is necessary. It would be unpleasant but wiser, imo, to say no nukes, period, and continue with economic sanctions and monitoring of Iranian activity for as along as it takes.

What we ought be promoting (I think) is cleaner, safer energy, and discouraging nuclear development even in countries that already have nuclear weapons. And continue with arms reduction talks, obviously. Then it would be much easier to just say that the whole world is going in a different direction and these guys have no rationale for pursuing a nuclear option.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5925
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:13 pm

Jnyusa wrote:I guess what I can't get through my head is why any deal at all is necessary.

Two reasons.

As I mentioned before, Obama's foreign policy has been one consistent uninterrupted trainwreck - the Russia reset, the Cairo speech, Syria, the "peace process", the much-advertised "Asian pivot"- seriously, I dare any Democratic candidate to campaign for office on the basis of the Obama-era foreign policy achievements. The Iran deal was, to a large extent, about Obama and Kerry's need for one big foreign policy accomplishment. Any deal, at any price, so long as Obama's salesmen could later spin it as a win of some sort.

The other reason is that Obama does not see Iran as an enemy but as an ally against the one force that Obama is willing to recognize as an enemy- ISIS. At this point, Iraq is a battlefield on which American troops share military bases with Iranian proxy militias while American warplanes serve as their air force. From that perspective, and if one plans to withdraw American power and influence from the Middle East, empowering Iran makes perfect sense... if one is sufficiently shortsighted.

And don't hope too much that Israel will do the "international community"s dirty work again. The deal includes a commitment by the USA, EU and other world powers to help Iran protect its nuclear assets.

Another commitment the US undertook is tearing down state-level American legislation which enforces sanctions on Iran- for example, by preventing state pension funds from investing into Iran. This is going to be an interesting conundrum because Obama took great pains to not turn the Iran deal into a treaty so that he wouldn't need to depend on the Congress to approve it. The USA will be bound in this deal by the international law, not by the US domestic law. But that means Obama will not have the legal means to pre-empt the authority of the individual states in enforcing old bans on investment in or trade with Iran, or laying down new ones. That should make for an interesting showdown.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:22 pm

portia wrote:One aspect of the agreement is that all parties need to agree to it, if there is to be any sort of agreement.

Pressing for "a better deal" assumes that there is a "better deal" that the Iranians would be willing to agree to.
I am not sure that: 1. there is such a deal, as the Iranians might ALSO feel that no deal is better than a bad deal; and 2. how sure are we that, if we shoot down a deal, that our allies would be willing to stick around instead of making separate deals?

I am not sure that the Obama Administration is "trusting" the Iranians to keep to the deal. It seems to me that the triggers are pretty good, and I agree that if some thing clandestine is going on that it will still be detectable 24 days later. Even if part of the agreement is kept, it will probably be better than the present situation.

Or, as Bashar Assad has recently succintly put it, Iran deal is proof that one must not compromise.

The sanctions regime held up until Obama wrecked it, even with the politically omnivorous China, so there was no reason to think that if the deal weren't made, America's allies would've gone and made one without America (although the fact that you ponder such a possibility shows just how weak your country's power and influence has grown in your eyes).

As for Iranians walking away from the table - if you want to bargain effectively, you MUST be willing to walk away - because if you cannot but the other party can, then you will be fleeced. And you were. If you aren't ready to call their bluff, negotiations become nothing but a road to surrender.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Jnyusa » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:59 pm

Storyteller wrote: As I mentioned before, Obama's foreign policy has been one consistent uninterrupted trainwreck ...

This paragraph I'm going to skip over because you're too consistently biased against Obama, and to argue it out would just be a war of prejudices.

The other reason is that Obama does not see Iran as an enemy but as an ally against the one force that Obama is willing to recognize as an enemy- ISIS. At this point, Iraq is a battlefield on which American troops share military bases with Iranian proxy militias while American warplanes serve as their air force. From that perspective, and if one plans to withdraw American power and influence from the Middle East, empowering Iran makes perfect sense... if one is sufficiently shortsighted.


This makes more sense to me, in terms of America's proactive role in pushing for an agreement. And yes, shortsightedness has been the hallmark of our foreign policy in the mid-East, ours and Europe's, since the days of the Barbary Pirates.

The deal includes a commitment by the USA, EU and other world powers to help Iran protect its nuclear assets.


I read the link and came away with a different perspective on the defense issue. There are many kinds of sabotage, or industrial espionage that I would not like to see happen, and since sabotage of nuclear facilities is a global risk management issue, it is impossible to imagine a nuclear agreement that did not contain this kind of provision. What would the US actually do if it were Israel who made a pre-emptive strike? ... I think that might be indeterminate at this point. We would not attack Israel in retaliation, certainly. As important as Iran may be vis a vis ISIS, she is nowhere near as important to us as Israel is.

Another commitment the US undertook is tearing down state-level American legislation which enforces sanctions on Iran- for example, by preventing state pension funds from investing into Iran.


Yes, selective purchasing has proven very effective for countering the excesses of tyrants and for limiting the ability of the federal government to either actively support tyrants or play dead with regard to their abuses. Even if state and municipal governments can be strongly influenced not to pursue selective purchasing (and some states have made it illegal for municipal government within the state to do so), there are still Universities and corporations that follow the Sullivan Principles and are not under the control of the federal government, though they receive significant funding from state and federal gov and this is always a consideration ... how hard to poke the hornet's nest? But the top universities have led the charge informing the rest of us as to where selective purchasing should be pursued, and those guys (Harvard, Yale, MIT) are small countries in and of themselves, pretty much impervious to the whining of our government.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5925
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Thu Jul 30, 2015 6:29 pm

I object to any suggestion that the Admin is "trusting" Iran. I see no trust going on. It is possible to negotiate a deal with someone who is an enemy without indulging in "trust". You build in whatever safeguards seem to be necessary, and then keep you eye on the other. It may not always work, but a no-negotiations position is useless, as you accomplish nothing.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:40 am

portia wrote:I object to any suggestion that the Admin is "trusting" Iran. I see no trust going on. It is possible to negotiate a deal with someone who is an enemy without indulging in "trust". You build in whatever safeguards seem to be necessary, and then keep you eye on the other. It may not always work, but a no-negotiations position is useless, as you accomplish nothing.

And where are the safeguards that seem to be necessary? Is it not a sign of unreasonable trust that under the deal, Iran is expected to provide IAEA with soil samples from areas of suspected unlawful nuclear activities instead of IAEA inspectors collecting them at the site?

It is, frankly, hard to shake off the impression that Obama's goal was to remove the Iran sanctions rather than stop it from getting nukes.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:26 am

Gee, you post as if it were only the US that was involved. There are a number of other countries who also agreed. What was motivating THEM?
Surely they didn't all just want the sanctions removed.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:13 am

portia wrote:Gee, you post as if it were only the US that was involved. There are a number of other countries who also agreed. What was motivating THEM?
Surely they didn't all just want the sanctions removed.

I don't know. Russia and China both have huge business interests in Iran, for Russia Iran, as part of anti-Western axis and a supporter of Syria, is also something of a geopolitical ally. France seemed to be the skeptic on the team, while the USA delegation was doing what was widely described as acting as a lawyer for Iran, making its case to the rest of the delegations.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:36 am

You don't sense any contradiction in the positions of Russia and China? If they disliked the sanctions, they could merely have ignored them, and not gone through all the fal-de-ra.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:44 am

portia wrote:You don't sense any contradiction in the positions of Russia and China? If they disliked the sanctions, they could merely have ignored them, and not gone through all the fal-de-ra.


To the reflexively Anti-Obama crowd, the interests of the other signatories are irrelevant. Indeed, the participation of other nations is beside the point to them, because they don't really CARE about the deal. All they care about is hating Obama.

Back in 1996 Netanyahu was warning that the Iranians posed an imminent threat. Back in 2012 he said they'd have nukes by the summer of 2013. Back in the Spring of this year he said they were only a few months away from getting nuclear weapons. Now, with this deal, the critics are saying that the Iranians will be able to make nuclear weapons in ten years.

So, over the last twenty years the Iranians seem to have made about six months progress towards making a bomb (from "imminent" in 1996, to "next summer" in 2012, to "a few months" just a few months ago), but now the deal pushes them back to ten years? Judging by those numbers alone I'd say the deal was a pretty good one.

Still no word at all on what a "better deal" would look like or how to accomplish it.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:37 pm

portia wrote:You don't sense any contradiction in the positions of Russia and China? If they disliked the sanctions, they could merely have ignored them, and not gone through all the fal-de-ra.

Seriously?

China generally opposes sanctions against states as a matter of principle, but it is forced to play by the rules because American and European markets are far more important for them than the Iranian market. They had no qualms running a nuclear cooperation program with Iran in the 1990-s and they see no urgency in stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power, but after several large Chinese companies were barred from USA market under the Iran sanctions regime, they began taking sanctions pretty seriously.

Russia HAS been violating sanctions as the USA looked the other way because Obama was determined to do that famously successful Russia "reset". Russia built Iran's reactors, for crying out loud. Their trade with the USA is negligible so they don't face the same risks as the Chinese, and the EU didn't have a lot of options for sanctioning the Russian energy companies that provide up to 100% of natural gas requirements for some EU member states (Russia exports little else to Europe). Moreover, Russia is itself currently under (lackluster) sanctions, and seeks to dismantle them- what better way than to team up with Iran?

Minardil - There's a difference between "I am yet to hear" and "I've ignored everything I've been told so far". There were plenty of options for a better deal, there's no shortage of suggestions on how it should have looked, and we've discussed them in the past; in fact, as Jnyusa observed earlier, the situation before agreement would've been preferable (because Iran's nuclear program would at least have been constrained by financial limits).

And yes, Iran has been predicted to be able to attain nuclear capability within a year by Netanyahu, USA experts, IAEA and a range of other sources since 2012 onwards. Its progress was successfully slowed down by a range of means such as the Stuxnet cyber attack, some mysterious "work accidents", assassination of the program's key scientists, political and economic pressure etc.

But guess what? Have a gawk at this self-contradicting White House infographic. It claims the incredible achievement of blocking Iran's path to nuclear bomb so comprehensively that the breakout time will be increased from 2-3 months to... that's right, one year.

The deal didn't gain ten years, it bought 9-10 months for over $100 billion plus removal of sanctions plus a promise of assistance in nuclear research plus paving the way towards Iranian domination in the Muslim world. Subtract the time it takes under the deal for the UNSC to meaningfully react to Iranian violations, which is two to three months under the most optimistic scenario. Sofive-six months from the moment Iran decides that it's time to drop the pretense - that's the grand gain? That's the good deal?
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:38 am

Minardil - There's a difference between "I am yet to hear" and "I've ignored everything I've been told so far


You've offered plenty of criticism, but I just read back through this thread and I don't see any specific suggestions for what a better detail would look like or how to achieve it. Nor have there been any specific suggestions put forth by opposing politicians. And this is pretty standard for the Anti-Obama crowd. It would be very interesting to have a discussion about what a deal should look like, but that really isn't what you're interested in, is it? One of your main complaints is that the Iranians can't be trusted, which is really an argument against ANY deal at all, and that is really your position. You don't want any deal, and even if you got everything you say you want (assuming you ever bother to say SPECIFICALLY what it is that you want) you'd reject that deal too. And you'd probably blame Obama.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:58 am

I also have not heard any suggestions about what would be a "better deal" (reminds me of the ACA debate when people said they wanted a "better deal," but when someone put forward one, it would have covered fewer people and cost more.) Saying we need a better deal is just a con.

Did we "trust" the USSR with the test ban treaty? Have we ever trusted anyone one with whom we have negotiated a treaty--except friends? And not always them.

If one of the criteria for a better deal is one which releases the people held in Iran, the proponents are really dreaming. We cannot negotiate a treaty that solves all problems between countries--never have and never will. those people are just showing their ignorance. Take small steps that address limited issues, and they try again with a new subject.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:42 am

portia wrote:I also have not heard any suggestions about what would be a "better deal" (reminds me of the ACA debate when people said they wanted a "better deal," but when someone put forward one, it would have covered fewer people and cost more.) Saying we need a better deal is just a con.

Did we "trust" the USSR with the test ban treaty? Have we ever trusted anyone one with whom we have negotiated a treaty--except friends? And not always them.

If one of the criteria for a better deal is one which releases the people held in Iran, the proponents are really dreaming. We cannot negotiate a treaty that solves all problems between countries--never have and never will. those people are just showing their ignorance. Take small steps that address limited issues, and they try again with a new subject.


There's a difference between a deal is better than no deal and, as is the case here, saying that a bad deal is not neccessarily better than the sanctions that were already in place.

There are provisions in the deal that are there, presumably at the behest of the Iranian ruling authority, that samples will be provided by the Iranians to the IAEA, not that the inspectors go and collect samples themselves. Any inspections can be delayed for a period of time, which is already suspicious.

It seems that the entire deal is there specifically to get the sanctions off of Iran rather than to try to bring Iran into meaningful discourse with the Western World. Essentially, a wag the dog moment.

A better deal would have included unfettered and unscheduled inspections by a third party (contrary to a lot of idiocy on the web, I'm not against the "No USA No Israel inspectors" line) such as Germany or Brittain or even South Africa or who the hell cares at that point. It would not obligate the removal of sanctions until actual, independently confirmed milestones had been reached. Providing them with nuclear research assistance is a poor idea in my opinion. If they want an energy solution other than their copious petroleum, there are vastly better options. Solar for one, which would do wonders in the region. Windmills. Geothermal. Etc. Nuclear energy research is, as best I can tell and it would seem a lot of folks agree, a smokescreen for a continued, veiled weapons program.

I think dealing with them openly is a good thing, but I think this deal is really a poor idea. It reaks of face saving on the part of our administration at best and looks like a complete fiasco at face value and, as best I can tell, it's there because everybody was under the impression that "A deal is needed!" and didn't care what the deal looked like as long as it exists.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10540
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:19 am

There are provisions in the deal that are there, presumably at the behest of the Iranian ruling authority, that samples will be provided by the Iranians to the IAEA, not that the inspectors go and collect samples themselves. Any inspections can be delayed for a period of time, which is already suspicious.


I've looked through the text of the agreement, and I don't see this provision regarding soil samples? It is a long agreement though, and like most documents can be confusing to read, so I could have missed it easily. Where is this language?

Here's a link to a PDF of the full text:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html

Also, I've heard criticisms that this deal requires us to "request" access to Iranian nuclear sites, and that the Iranians have up to 24 days to grant this. But that isn't really what the deal says. The deal gives the inspectors regular, daily access to declared sites, they is existing sites that we already know about such as the Arak reactor and the sites that build centrifuges and conduct enrichment. The deal also restricts future enrichment activities to ONE of these declared sites, where again, we'll have regular, daily access for inspections. The "24 day" thing is only for new, undeclared sites where we might one day suspect that the Iranians are doing research. And even then, if we had to wait 24 days, it would still be impossible for the Iranians to hide weapons research activities.

The deal reduces their centrifuge capacity significantly. It cuts their stock of enriched uranium and forbids them to increase it.

And there's more, but in order for the Iranians to build a bomb, they'd have to build an entirely NEW program totally in secret, with new secret factories, new secret reactors, new labs, and even new Scientists and Technicians! And if we had suspicions that they were doing that, they'd have at most 24 days to tear that all down and move it. Think of what that means, before you say this is a bad deal.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:03 am

The thing about the soil samples I saw on a CNN report at 5 in the morning while in the gym. Granted, I may have misheard or it may just be mistaken, but I don't think so. I've heard it repeated independantly by others. If I had the time to search for said text in the agreement I would, but right now I'm doing fly by posting.

As for the rest, yes, I see that. However, I still don't think it's the best agreement. At the very least, it relies on the conception that we have knowledge of the entirety or at least majority of their nuclear efforts, which I don't think is a safe assumption. And, as I said, I don't think letting them continue nuclear development is, at all, a good thing. It's just too fraught with major problems. Frankly, I'm not terribly fond of anybody messing around with nuclear anything, though I do think we should be using fission plants for clean energy where we can at least until something better is found. In Iran, the power density demands are not as high as they are in the US, Brittain, France, etc., and something else can very suitably fill their needs. It's kind of like putting jet fuel in a Corrolla: yeah, it might make the thing go, but it's going to blow it up in the end.

On top of that, I don't think that the Iranians are dealing openly and honestly here, though I have nothing to support that but supposition and intuition. I think that a lot of what happened there was putting on a face for the West so that we'd lift sanctions and that at the end of the day, they'll put on a different face for the folks back home about how they stood up to the US and, after that, they'll just keep on doing whatever they please just underground.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10540
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:00 pm

I have also heard the "soil sample" thing, but only from critics of the agreement. I did a search on the PDF for the words "soil" and "sample" and neither appears in the document, so I am wondering if there really is specific language in the agreement that deals with this, or if this is an "interpretation" that someone has created to spin their arguments against the treaty?

As for the demand that Iran discontinue ALL nuclear research, that's simply not a realistic expectation. For one thing, Iran's nuclear research program is a source of national pride to Iranians, they would not agree to any deal that required them to give up all nuclear research. For another thing, we don't really have the legal right to demand that they give it up. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty specifically allows and even ENCOURAGES peaceful nuclear research, for power generation and medical research and other non-military applications. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, we cannot demand that they give up "peaceful" research programs that the treaty permits them to pursue.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Jnyusa » Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:24 pm

Min wrote:The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty specifically allows and even ENCOURAGES peaceful nuclear research, for power generation and medical research and other non-military applications.

That's the problem in a nutshell, but I've already expressed my opinion about this. And I do recognize how wildly idealistic my position is.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5925
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:09 pm

We can spin all sorts of imaginary situations that we think would be better, but--and I am repeating this--we have to get the Iranian's agreement, too. We cannot waive a magic wand and make it happen.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:20 pm

Minardil wrote:
There are provisions in the deal that are there, presumably at the behest of the Iranian ruling authority, that samples will be provided by the Iranians to the IAEA, not that the inspectors go and collect samples themselves. Any inspections can be delayed for a period of time, which is already suspicious.


I've looked through the text of the agreement, and I don't see this provision regarding soil samples? It is a long agreement though, and like most documents can be confusing to read, so I could have missed it easily. Where is this language?

Here's a link to a PDF of the full text:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html

It's part of the "confidential side deals". Google that.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:33 am

Doubtless these 29 scientists, including some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control and five nobel laureates, don't have a clue what they are talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world ... obama.html
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner
 
Posts: 5550
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Next

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest